tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post1468878469435052128..comments2016-08-27T13:49:21.898+01:00Comments on Famous for 15 megapixels: The Anti-DawkinsStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-89508036044756416192009-01-19T08:13:00.000+00:002009-01-19T08:13:00.000+00:00Come to think of it, Darwinism is THE Cargo Cult S...Come to think of it, Darwinism is THE Cargo Cult Science. It describes what happened, without really telling you what happened.<BR/><BR/>Embrace the unknown!<BR/><BR/>The problem with 'you sitting on the fence' is *not* that people worry about *you*, they suddenly have an unexplained void (which you created, I'd say) and *they* feel uncomfortable with this void. If you overthrow their gods, they will demand new ones.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is your duty to 'fill people's voids', but preparing people for the void and teaching them how to handle the void comes to my mind (however this might be possible).<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it is hard: You break up people's ignorance and suddenly you are faced with another layer of ignorance. A colleague of mine: You can tell him a thousand times that what the media tells you might be a piece of truth covered in all kinds of shit (I point him to his areas of expertise, there he can see it clearly), but he goes and takess the 'official narrative' at face value almost any time. Sigh.Parabellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-20935696728179918402009-01-18T23:57:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:57:00.000+00:00There is an interesting overlap here between scept...There is an interesting overlap here between scepticism about Darwinism and doubts about 'Official Narratives'<BR/><BR/>When I express doubts about Darwinism or, say, the 7/7 bombings to people their response is almost always to ask me what I think really happened<BR/><BR/>Sometimes people even tell me that I <I>have</I> to come up with an answer, as 'sitting on the fence' is an indefensible, intellectually cowardly position<BR/><BR/>As if the act of rejecting an explanation creates some kind of responsibility to replace it with a competing narrative <BR/><BR/>Our culture has supposedly evolved into an open-minded, non dogmatic, investigative, secular culture. The pressure to close down any questions with definitive answers, however stupid, suggests otherwise IMHOStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-14959064515777415992009-01-18T23:35:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:35:00.000+00:00Admitting your own ignorance can be very liberatin...<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Application" REL="nofollow">Admitting your own ignorance</A> can be very liberating IMHO<BR/><BR/>For many of us, 'I don't know' is as hard to say as 'I was wrong'Stefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-10860601221896598392009-01-18T23:25:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:25:00.000+00:00some dinosaurs might even have been furryno way of...some dinosaurs might even have been furry<BR/><BR/>no way of being sure...Stefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-2927656460539088602009-01-18T23:24:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:24:00.000+00:00I ask the dinosaur question because palaeontologis...I ask the dinosaur question because palaeontologists have simply guessed, based on the colours of living reptiles <BR/><BR/>Without being able to look at the answers first, evolution theory offers absolutely fuck all in insight to a question like this<BR/><BR/>But I absolutely guarantee you, if we ever find what the colour/ patterning of a particular dinosaur was, evolutionists would then talk about how evolution 'explains' how that came to beStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-76142975889691649862009-01-18T23:18:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:18:00.000+00:00Personally, because I have little faith in evoluti...Personally, because I have little faith in evolution, I just say that they have a particular colour which serves a particular function. <BR/><BR/>Just because I don't understand how something is made doesn't mean that I can't describe it or its apparent function<BR/><BR/>I haven't played the film through. I willStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-46622780104671301412009-01-18T23:17:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:17:00.000+00:00How do we know what colour dinosaurs were?Probably...How do we know what colour dinosaurs were?<BR/><BR/>Probably the wrong one.<BR/><BR/>In the Feyman interview, he describes, very very shortly, his participation in the Manhattan Project. There you can see a man trying very hard to admit that what he did was probably wrong - and while noticeable struggling failing to do so.<BR/><BR/>It is easy to say 'you are wrong', but so much harder to admit 'I am wrong'. I'm afraid I see it in me from time to time that I am wrong - and I am afraid of how many times I don't see it that I am wrong...Parabellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-25454433106967980942009-01-18T23:10:00.000+00:002009-01-18T23:10:00.000+00:00Well, Feynman said that he can live with not knowi...Well, Feynman said that he can live with not knowing something, that he can live with this kind of 'mystery'. And when he says that the flowers 'evolved' their colours but that he has not got the slightest clue how they did it, the question is what other word he should have used instead of 'evolved'.<BR/><BR/>But it comes close to pretending to know something about, when one does not actually know anything about - cue in cargo cult science.Parabellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-69848467951264301772009-01-18T18:46:00.000+00:002009-01-18T18:46:00.000+00:00here's a simple question...how do we know what col...here's a simple question...<BR/><BR/>how do we know what colour dinosaurs were?Stefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-10361000787352066652009-01-18T18:44:00.000+00:002009-01-18T18:44:00.000+00:00thxit's been added to my 'will watch' listI did ju...thx<BR/><BR/>it's been added to my 'will watch' list<BR/><BR/>I did just play the first couple of minutes and heard Feynman talk about how flowers have 'evolved' their coloration to attract insects <BR/><BR/>hmnm, except when they don't<BR/><BR/>this is a nice example of evolution 'explaining' everything and therefore explaining nothing<BR/><BR/>if a creature is brightly coloured it is said that it evolved the coloration to attract attention, or as warning<BR/><BR/>if a creature has dull colours it is said to have evolved them as a form of camoflauge<BR/><BR/>if a creature is not particularly coloured one way or another it is said that colouration gives that creature no particular evolutionary advantage<BR/><BR/>it all sound very plausible but none of it proves evolution was involved at all<BR/><BR/>all of these explanations are retrospective, have no predictive power whatsoever and are completely untestableStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-76915731690976053622009-01-18T18:23:00.000+00:002009-01-18T18:23:00.000+00:00A 50 minutes interview with / documentary of Richa...A 50 minutes interview with / documentary of <A HREF="http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=7136440703094429927&ei=4ytySYvVO4bi2gKbnp21BQ&q=Feynman&hl=de" REL="nofollow">Richard Feynman</A><BR/><BR/>Even if he bashes mysticism, ESP, and<BR/>so forth quite badly in his 'Cargo Cult' text, this interview resonates a bit with the conversation you linked to.Parabellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-17799472775236879922009-01-14T19:08:00.000+00:002009-01-14T19:08:00.000+00:00@Paul,Non Dualism is well worth having a look at.T...@Paul,<BR/><BR/>Non Dualism is well worth having a look at.There is a guy called Mooji from Brixton has a very good reputation as a teacher.<BR/>I find the subject interesting,,infact I wouldn´t be sitting here talking to you guys if it were not for the fact that this subject has been on my mind for nearly 30 years now.<BR/>Three sages I can highly recommend are 1.Paul Brunton.2Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi.<BR/><BR/>more here.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism" REL="nofollow">Nondualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate</A>robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125672442225990564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-44333942657809426022009-01-14T18:21:00.000+00:002009-01-14T18:21:00.000+00:00There is no "outside" per say.Everything past,pres...<I>There is no "outside" per say.Everything past,present and furure are ALL in your head or a better word would be .Mind</I><BR/><BR/>Much as I would like that, I perceive definite limits to my self. <BR/>My memory is like a sieve, I frequently can't make head nor tail of the present and my less than perfect vision of the future is pretty much driven by unfashionable induction (which so far has beaten the orthodox economists'/journalists'/politicians' view that <I>'it'll will be different this time'</I>).<BR/><BR/>...And my ability to affect the material world is negligible.<BR/><BR/>What role do other human type dream things play in all of this? Is the same pp&amp;f in your head as mine?paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14608591025225519578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-59916773928661056542009-01-14T17:37:00.000+00:002009-01-14T17:37:00.000+00:00Where is your entire life up until this present mo...Where is your entire life up until this present moment??it´s in your Mind as a memory.<BR/><BR/>Which is exactly where I would expect it to be, the past is retained as memories. You wouldn't have much time for 'the moment' if you had to learn everything over and over again.<BR/><BR/>you missed the point I think.There is no "outside" per say.Everything past,present and furure are ALL in your head or a better word would be .<STRONG>Mind</STRONG><BR/><BR/>This point is subtle and takes a lot of pondering before you get it.<BR/>Look up <EM>Non Dualism</EM> for further info on the matter.robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125672442225990564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-84521911439576258662009-01-14T17:09:00.000+00:002009-01-14T17:09:00.000+00:00How can you talk 'bout god and reality, and not ta...How can you talk 'bout god and reality, and not talk 'bout TV?<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBm9ZyIg3I0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-86010730504894507422009-01-14T16:51:00.000+00:002009-01-14T16:51:00.000+00:00It takes your best years trying to work out why an...<I>It takes your best years trying to work out why and how deliberately fucked up things are.</I><BR/><BR/>and that's the Truth<BR/><BR/>of course, going through that process might be the entire point of our existence in the first place<BR/><BR/>a bit hard on those who never see their best years thoughStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-73860358181890807612009-01-14T16:42:00.000+00:002009-01-14T16:42:00.000+00:00Where is your entire life up until this present mo...<I>Where is your entire life up until this present moment??it´s in your Mind as a memory.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is exactly where I would expect it to be, the past is retained as memories. You wouldn't have much time for 'the moment' if you had to learn everything over and over again.<BR/>Mind you, if we were simply receivers of the force, the universe would presumably have accumulated enough wisdom to prevent us making the same mistakes all over again.<BR/><BR/>That's why I'm so fucked off that reincarnation and past lives aren't universal.<BR/><BR/>It takes your best years trying to work out why and how deliberately fucked up things are.<BR/><BR/>If you ever do, its probably too late.paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14608591025225519578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-18734858260579626582009-01-14T13:02:00.000+00:002009-01-14T13:02:00.000+00:00Stef -"I gave up on trying to figure out God's exi...Stef -<I>"I gave up on trying to figure out God's existence / non existence a long time ago"</I><BR/><BR/>What's called 'Ignosticism' seems like a fairly sensible position to me wrt these questions.<BR/><BR/>"An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth."<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism<BR/><BR/>MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-27976967100232074532009-01-14T12:56:00.000+00:002009-01-14T12:56:00.000+00:00PS From the Talk section of Francis Crick's wikipe...PS From the Talk section of Francis Crick's wikipedia entry...<BR/><BR/><I>"He is listed under both the English atheists and English agnostics categories. Did he change his position from one to the other at some point? CopaceticThought (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)<BR/><BR/> In his autobiography, Crick described himself as agnostic. It would nice to have additional data points. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)<BR/><BR/>Religious stance: This is an example of one of the past attempts to characterize Crick's position with respect to religion. More commonly, Crick is labeled as an atheist (example). The article (in a footnote) quotes what Crick wrote in his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit (see Chapter 1): after having told his mother that he no longer wished to attend church services: "...from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism." In my view, this statement by Crick indicates that he leaned towards atheism, but did not adopt atheism as his stance. Wikipedia lists multiple types of agnosticism, but I'm not sure that Crick would have adopted any of them. I have the tendency to object to the use of a template that has a field for "religion", so I have been filling that field with the word none (etc). What is the best thing to do here? --JWSurf (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)<BR/><BR/> Perhaps Agnostic atheism is the best descriptor: "An <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism" REL="nofollow">agnostic atheist</A> […] does not believe any deities exist, and […] does not claim to know that they don't". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)</I>"Stefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-85208617835962138592009-01-14T12:44:00.000+00:002009-01-14T12:44:00.000+00:00If I weren't so debilitatingly agnostic... Have ju...<I>If I weren't so debilitatingly agnostic...</I> <BR/><BR/>Have just reserved badassmofoagnostic.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/>will figure out what to do with it, if anything, another timeStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-67223303683398692152009-01-14T12:29:00.000+00:002009-01-14T12:29:00.000+00:00"and if we are created entities, and if there is m..."and if we are created entities, and if there is more to our world than meets the eye, that doesn't absolve us from dealing with the reality that meets our eyes, treating that perception of reality as real and trying to live a decent, purposeful existence<BR/><BR/>if you are living a fucker's life in the Matrix you are still a real fucker, even if the Matrix is virtual"<BR/><BR/>exactly Stef!<BR/>a lot of mystics of old fucked off to caves and remote places to enjoy their bliss.They had found God but gave the finger to the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>Buddha means "Awakened"Buddha never fucked off however.He lived amongst men and attempted to "awaken" them also.<BR/>Life may be a dream of sorts but that does not make it any less real paradoxically!<BR/>The atrocities going on in Palestine are no less real just because events take place within your own consciousness.robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125672442225990564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-62856864990781278572009-01-14T11:46:00.000+00:002009-01-14T11:46:00.000+00:00Maybe it's because I haven't thought about it enou...Maybe it's because I haven't thought about it enough but I can't see where this holographic hypothesis would take you anyway<BR/><BR/>It's bit like suggesting that the entire universe is only five seconds old and was created in its current state, including all our memories, five seconds ago when I started typing this comment<BR/><BR/>well yes, could be<BR/><BR/>but so what?<BR/><BR/>and if we are created entities, and if there is more to our world than meets the eye, that doesn't absolve us from dealing with the reality that meets our eyes, treating that perception of reality as real and trying to live a decent, purposeful existence<BR/><BR/>if you are living a fucker's life in the Matrix you are still a real fucker, even if the Matrix is virtualStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-34783422260042003812009-01-14T11:27:00.000+00:002009-01-14T11:27:00.000+00:00@Paul,There sure were some odd examples in the vid...@Paul,<BR/>There sure were some odd examples in the video!!Like I say That video was less than perfect.<BR/><BR/>This is how I see it however.All there really is is Mind.Life is very much like a dream,an extended dream.You can never get outside your own mind.The Mind projects and perceives its own projections.It sound s out there.<BR/>Try this simple experiment.<BR/><BR/>Where is your entire life up until this present moment??it´s in your Mind as a memory.The future dreams are also in your head so to speak.<BR/><BR/>Here is another interesting approach,,one of many.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.headless.org/english-welcome.htm" REL="nofollow">THE HEADLESS WAY</A>robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125672442225990564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-26690614345754765162009-01-14T11:13:00.000+00:002009-01-14T11:13:00.000+00:00saying something is shite is a useless reply.Maybe...<I>saying something is shite is a useless reply.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe, but it is an honest one. Saying that reality is the product of our perceptions is not the same as demonstrating that there is no exterior environment beyond our perceptions.<BR/>The examples given are odd:<BR/>The light from a candle cannot be received by the brain encased in darkness within our skull. It is merely an interpretation.<BR/>a) How do we know our brain is in darkness, how do we know our skulls aren't transparent<BR/>b)Presenting the brain, or what happens there, as distinct from the rest of our nervous system (somatic/autonomic) is a rather reductive view of ourselves. Separating it is rather like the mechanical division between ourselves and the material world.<BR/><BR/>I don't think its wrong to see the eye, or ear or skin as part of the brain or even their sum being the whole of our consciousness, and don't exclude them being modulated by other phenomena.<BR/><BR/>However our mundane material existence is generally consistent with that communicated by others, so who knows, it might even exist.<BR/><BR/>We experience the dream state when we are not interacting with the material world, it might be another state but it does not invalidate our everyday consciousness/perceptions. <BR/><BR/>Indeed we recognise them as distinct from 'normal' experiences. They did happen, but was that us just playing with ourselves?<BR/><BR/>I am quite happy to rely on the sun rising in the east each day, it reassures me.<BR/><BR/>If I weren't so debilitatingly agnostic (and this extends to the madness I observe around me), I would be a pantheist (maybe I am deep down(in what?)). Which would be agreeable to all these sorts of things.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, could go on forever, must fuck off now.<BR/><BR/><I>And when it came down in the end,<BR/>The men dress like women,<BR/>And the women as men,<BR/>And the sun sun shall rise in the west,<BR/>And set down in the East.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Last Poets - Mean Machinepaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14608591025225519578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-29058015801898630002009-01-14T07:01:00.000+00:002009-01-14T07:01:00.000+00:00Like I've seen a 1000000 times before, it's simply...Like I've seen a 1000000 times before, it's simply playing around the houses: Call it by it's proper name: God.<BR/><BR/>God The Unfathomable.<BR/><BR/>All philosophers/Sages who largely manage to leave their bias behind ALWAYS come to the same conclusion... There 'is' <B>A</B> Creator.<BR/><BR/>Even those peoples for whom the phophetic teachings became distorted over eons, acknowledge an initial Creator.<BR/><BR/>-lwtc247-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com